Is beating prime Lennox Lewis and Corrie Sanders better than Fury's two best wins aginst Wilder and old Klitschko?
Hmm tricky one but yeah probably. Rahman beating Lewis is a greater win that being Wlad for me. Sanders beat Wlad who is better than anyone Wilder ever beat and Sanders and Wilder has some simelarties big punchers but not a tremendous depth to their list of wins.
Knocking out a prime Lennox Lewis is better than out pointing an old Wladimir, in one of the worst Heavyweight title fights in history. As for Corrie Sanders well Wilder has achieved more, but Sanders has the best win by far KOing a young Wladimir in 2 rounds. I also favour a prime Corrie Sanders over Wilder for what it's worth.
The Lewis that Rahman beat was out of shape and complacent, but still probably better than the Wlad Fury beat. I think Wilder was probably better than Sanders, though admittedly there's not much in it. If you framed the question, who did better against their respective best 2 opponents on the whole, then Fury's official 3-0-1 (4-0 on fair scorecards), with all 3 wins being dominant, decisive wins, hints at a superior fighter than Rahman's 2-1, with one of the wins being a 1-punch, come from behind, KO against a complacent fighter who had travelled to the high-altitude fight location later than experts recommended, because he'd been shooting a fight scene with Wlad for one of the Oceans film franchise.
Fury's win over P4P No.2 18 consecutive defence Wlad in Wlad's backyard was statistically the greatest 12 round defensive boxing performance of all time at any weight vs a champion, against a master pointfighter who was never otherwise outpointed in 69 fights. Fury ended the Klitschko era (2004-2015). Rahman did what fellow fringe contender McCall did in landing a haymaker and cracking Lewis's suspect chin. Wilder was a 10 consecutive defence champion, like Wlad one of the top few hardest punchers ever and again in his backyard. Fury's win in the 2nd fight was one of the most dominant boxing performances at that level of all time, coming back from suffering 2 KD's in the first Wilder fight and coming off sustaining bad cuts vs Wallin. Sanders (a massive underdog fringe contender who'd lost to Rahman and Nate Tubbs) did what Puritty and Brewster also did to Wlad in his 20's, albeit much faster (like McCall and Rahman to Lewis) and cracked Wlad's suspect chin early. Rahman went life and death with Sanders. Fury's top 2 wins showed a much higher level than Rahman's top 2 and they were far more significant wins.
The answer is yes but he also lost 2x to Oleg Maskaev in his prime. There's lots of guys who have a case for having 2 better wins than Fury but the losses have to also count against them.
Yes clearly, lets start calling Rahman one of the greatest of all time. Sarcasm is rubbing off on me lately.
It's not a fluke especially in HW boxing. Lewis got out of position horribly and got chinned. At least when Fury gets caught he has special powers of instinct to never get counted out. He'll always get up.
Interesting question, I’d have to say yes for obvious reasons. Those 2 losses to Maskaev will always boggle my mind
